The World is only 7000 years old

the bible history to the creation of the earth goes back about 7000 yrs. 5000 years BC, 2000 years AD. its true

I'm sometimes stunned how people can think the world/universe is only 7000 years old....

The scientific proof is everywhere. Fossils? Geology? Carbon Dating?

Just looking through a telescope proves that the whole universe is billions of years old. Light takes millions of years to reach us from most stars. If the universe is 7000 years old, How can we see the stars?

Fundies .... you gotta love 'em

Dont believe these sad, confused scientists.

The bible is true.

Bill had it right ...

[link to www.youtube.com]

Carbon dating is a human creation and therefore flawed. They even argue over the dating of the Turin shroud now,

And the universe may be billions of years in existence, because time is of no consequence to the Creator, Earth is 7000 years old. I ask again, rocks cannot last for a million or a billion years, no way.

That's BS because our Hopi Prophecy tablets have been carbon dated between 50 & 60 thousand years old.
The earth is billions of years old.

We knew before scientist checked, how old those tablets are.
The Bible is a fucking joke and a half.

"Carbon dating is a human creation and therefore flawed"

And the bible was written by humans ....

So true. But don't try to convince the brain washed sheep. They are a lost cause.

Just 7000? That's impossible!

Where did Bob Barker live before the Earth finally cooled?

[link to www.answersingenesis.org]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2

2. Too few supernova remnants.

Crab Nebula (photo courtesy of NASA)

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.

Radio Halo (photo courtesy of Mark Armitage)

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

It's amazing that having posted that you halted all talk from skeptical scientists.

This isn't to say that I agree with everything you argue. It's just remarkable that they don't any decent counter arguments.

So you agree with the universe being billions of years old. Good. Now accept that the universe is made from the same rocks as Earth.

If you agree that the universe is billions of years old, then you must accept that the same components (the elements, rocks, or whatever you think turns to 'less than dust') must be the same age or similar.

That is if one presupposes the Earth was created at the same time as everything else.

The evidence (detailed above) actually proves it was not.

[link to www.cesame-nm.org]
---------------------
Self-styled "creation physicist" D. Russell Humphreys, an adjunct faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research, often lectures on "Evidence for a Young World" at creationist seminars and fundamentalist churches around America and the world. He claims to provide evidence that the Earth is not billions of years old, but just a few thousand years old, as required by some Biblical literalists. Humphreys says that if the universe and Earth are as old as scientists think, then spiral galaxies would be wound up into balls, there would be no comets, the sea floors would be choked with sediments, the ocean would be much saltier, and there would be billions of tombs of dead cavemen.

In his lectures and brochures, Humphreys tells his audience that he will show how various processes provide maximum ages for the Earth. Some of these `maximum ages' can be as long as 100 million years, but they are invariably less than the scientifically-determined age. Humphreys claims that the true age of the Earth is set by the smallest such maximum age, which conveniently turns out to be just a few thousand years. That is, he looks at several very dubious age estimates, and declares the youngest such "estimate" to be correct. It's like looking at three estimates of the "maximum" distance from Albuquerque to Los Angeles: a thousand miles, 100 miles, and 10 feet. By Humphreys' logic, the smallest "maximum" distance (10 feet) is the best, most accurate value, because it "fits comfortably within the maximum possible" values!

When Humphreys talks at churches or creationism seminars, he is introduced as a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, a respected federal science institution. But Humphreys' conclusions on the age of the Earth are not supported by Sandia. His work in an engineering group responsible for designing bomb fuses is completely unrelated to his creationist activities. And Humphreys doesn't present his young-earth arguments to Sandia colleagues, even though many Sandia programs involve radiometric dating and the age of the Earth. In fact, when a Sandia colleague recently requested his data on problems with radiocarbon dating, Humphreys refused to supply it because it was "non-work related." Humphreys' employment at Sandia certainly does not mean that this prestigious institution endorses his radical views on the age of the Earth.

Here are brief discussions of Humphreys' five favorite young-earth arguments, and of his attack on radiocarbon dating.

(1) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast (maximum age: a few hundred million years). Humphreys shows off a computer simulation in which a very simple "galaxy," a line of stars about a center point, develops a spiral shape. This spiral then winds up and disappears in just a few hundred million years. In this way, Humphreys claims to "prove" that galaxies can not be billions of years old. In his super-simple simulation, however, the stars are attracted to a "galactic center" - but not to each other! As a result, more distant stars move more slowly about the "galactic center," just as planets do around our Sun. But Humphreys fails to mention that the situation in real galaxies is far more complex than this: for one, real stars attract each other with large gravitational fields. Only the outermost stars of real galaxies have the "Keplerian" orbits he assumes, while the inner stars of a galaxy can move very differently, often almost as a rigid disk. Humphreys dismisses one of the modern theories of spiral formation, "density wave theory," as too complex, but it's really his ideas that are far too simple. Humphreys' strawman galaxy does not prove that galaxies are young.

(2) Comets disintegrate too quickly (maximum age: 100,000 years). Humphreys notes that comets lose some mass with every trip around the sun, claims that there is no source of new comets in the solar system, and then concludes that comet lifetimes (10 to 100 thousand years) provide an upper limit to the age of the solar system. But Humphreys' comet theory fell apart recently because a source for new comets, the Kuiper Belt (predicted by astronomer Gerard Kuiper in 1951), has been actually photographed and confirmed by several teams of astronomers. Humphreys responds to these discoveries by saying that the supposed "Kuyper Belt" [sic] doesn't help scientists because it must be supplied by the unproven Oort Cloud; and that even if what he calls the "Kuyper Belt" existed, it would exhaust itself of comets in a short time (say, a million years). But he has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets. There is a source for new comets, and the fact that we still see comets does not prove the solar system is young.

(3) Not enough mud on the sea floor (maximum age: 12 million years). Humphreys mentions reports that 25 billion tons of sediment erode from the continents each year, and that plate tectonic subduction removes only 1 billion tons of sediment from the ocean floor per year. He then claims that it would only take 12 million years at most for the excess 24 billion tons per year to produce the current amount of sediment - at an average depth of about 400 meters. But once again, Humphreys' model is far too simple. The depth of sediments on the ocean bottoms is not a uniform 400 meters, but varies considerably. And much sediment never gets to the oceanic floor, but is trapped instead on continental slopes and shelves, or in huge river deltas. Over the years, some of these continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment, while others can even become part of mountain ranges in continental plate-to-plate collisions. Neither erosion nor subduction are expected to be constant processes over millions of years, and they are simply not very good clocks. Humphreys' strawman ocean floor does not prove the Earth is young.

(4) Not enough sodium in the sea (maximum age: 62 million years). This is another example of processes which vary greatly being used as "constant-rate" processes for dating the Earth. Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is 4 feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than 2 days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method. (Several other creationist "proofs" of a young Earth involve similar extrapolations.)

(5) Not enough stone age skeletons (Upper limit for duration of Stone Age: 500 years). Humphreys assumes that the Stone Age had a constant population of about 1 million, with 25 years average between generations. Thus, if the Stone Age lasted for 100,000 years (like those "evolutionists" think), then there should be 4,000 generations, times one million people per generation, for a total of 4 billion buried bodies to be found. Humphreys notes that only a few thousand have been found, and concludes that the actual duration of the Stone Age is only 500 years. He provides no justification for his model of grave discovery rates as a "clock." Perhaps, in a thousand centuries, some of those burial sites might just have been eroded away, or covered with tons of soil or debris. Predators or vandals might have disturbed some of the graves, and subsequent generations of cavemen may have even re-used some of the same traditional burial sites. In any event, it is clear that the number of discovered Stone Age graves does not provide a very accurate "clock" for finding the age of the Earth.

Finally, Dr. Humphreys rejects scientifically-accepted methods for determination of the Earth's age, such as radioactive dating. He often shows a slide indicating that carbon-14 (C-14) radioactive dating methods are inaccurate because "the ratio of radioactive (C-14) to normal (C-12) carbon was at least 16 times smaller before the flood [of Noah]," and therefore that "Evolutionists overestimate C-14 ages." Humphreys' statement on carbon ratios is based on a short piece in the journal Nature (C. J. Yapp and H. Poths, Vol 355, p. 342, 23 Jan. 1992), which refers to a 16-fold increase in atmospheric carbon in rocks from the Ordovician Period. These rocks are actually about 440 million years old. Now, the relatively rapid decay of carbon-14 prevents its use as a clock on anything older than about 50,000 years. Using C-14 to find the age of a rock which is millions of years old is a lot like trying to look at Mars with a microscope instead of a telescope; it's simply not the right tool for the job. Humphreys has presented this "analysis" of radiocarbon dating for years, even though he cannot point to even one age estimate which has been incorrect because of the "pre-flood" carbon dioxide levels.

Humphreys creates a slick, scientific-sounding argument for a "young" Earth, but in the process seriously misrepresents modern consensus. All serious dating methods (radiometric age dating, dendrochronology, ice core analysis, varve deposition, and more) yield ages far older than Humphreys' methods.

D. Russell Humphreys breaks all the rules of science. He uses flawed logic, overly simple models, and twisted data to sell his young Earth. Caveat Emptor!
--------------


In other words you are quoting a retard. If I wanted to I could go and find credible sources that would annahilate the other points as well but really I can't be arsed. So you will have to do with this article from januari 1998 (odd that Humpreys hasn't changed his theories even though a lot questions are asked about them, why hasn't he gone into them?).

Yes 6 minutes is really enough time to debunk anything....

It's only possible if you belief in retarded beliefs such as;

God did it!

And thus you won't have to reason in any other form or whatever.

christian fundamentalism = a deep sickness of the mind

clearly the world and universe are not 7,000 years old, how can you be that moronic and brainless to think that it could be???????????????

I could give you 50 years and you still wouldn't provide a reasonable response.

Your problem is very simple.

You're a liar.

You cannot... (and I say this because I've tested this)... YOU CANNOT tell the truth.

You cannot even discern truth from lies anymore. To you neither of those qualities exist.

Your only motivation is survival. You will do and say anything for this end.

I hate to be a bit flippant about all this. Since I have Faith that my salvation isn't altered in the least regardless of Earth's actual age... So I'll reiterate...

If the earth were only 7000 years old where did Bob Barker live before the Earth finally cooled?

[link to www.sgisland.org]

This image and others like it prove the Earth is young and recently sustained cataclysmic trauma.

Are you going to respond with a bunch of lies to deny this?

The Earth was never hot.

This may not be true.

You see, salvation of the Gentiles (according to Paul) depends upon their turning against Satan.

Since Satan is the father of lies and since the age of the Earth has been used to promote lies, it should follow that the (knowing) promoter of lies puts his own personal salvation at risk.

So... if you are shown how the age of the Earth is being misrepresented and yet you don't care enough to find and spread the truth in this regard... you aid and abet the liars.

It's your call.

LOL, so all the civilizations and different species that lived before that time were put here on Earth to test your faith, right?

Ok point out lies I've made.

Since you aparently did extensive study to what I posted on the internetz you should be able of pointing that out without problems right?

If you didn't do a study specific to me then you sir are the liar.

Humphreys is a PhD.

He is no more a "retard" than Dawkins, who is also a PhD!

i.e.why should one believe one PhD over another, especially when they both have hundreds of other PhDs supporting their respective view points?!

Here are some PhD YECs (Young Earth Creationists)

[link to www.christiananswers.net]

There are no species or civilizations which existed on Earth before that time.

It's kinda hard to debunk if you even refuse to tell the theory you have about that picture, where that picture was taken etc.

This is irrelevant.

I asked you a question.

I want you to answer it.

If you can't then I understand.

Why don't approach the problem in a different way?

Why do you hope to debunk what I say at all?

Can you not see that those rocks were formed suddenly, while wet and under great pressures?

Doesn't empirical science preclude any other explanation for them?

Why must you try to avoid what is clear?

Instead why don't you accept that your theories must be wrong?